JUDGMENT. Per Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J.-Both these appeals have been directed against the judgment and award dated 13-12-1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Dehradun in MAC Petition No. 310 of 1988, Sneh Lata and others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. AO. No. 288 of 2001 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount, while A.O. No. 278 of 2001 has been preferred by the U.P.S.R.T.C. challenging the impugned judgment and award. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum in case the amount of compensation was not paid within two months. Since common questions are involved for determination in these two appeals, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri H.C. Goel aged about 49 years, earning Rs. 3804/-' per month and posted as Civil Judge, Meerut lost his life in a motor vehicle accident on 15-6-1988 at 10:15 a.m. on Dehradun - Doiwala Road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. UGA-9034. According to the claimants, on the fateful day the deceased along with his family and one Arvind Kumar was going from Dehradun to Meerut in a Fiat Car No, MAP-4234, driven by himself in a moderate speeed. When he reached Village Lachhiwala within P.S. Doiwala, the offending bus came from the opposite direction at a high speed from wrong side and knocked down the Fiat Car with the result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died in Doon Hospital', Dehradun. Hence the claim petition was filed by his legal representatives/dependents for compensation of Rs. 24,46,926/along with interest @ 18% per annum. A prayer for grant of compensation on the principle of no fault liability was made in the petition. 3. The opposite party UPSRTC filed its written statement, paper no. 22-B. It denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It asserted that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. In the additional pleas, it was stated that the claim petition is not legally maintainable; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely, the owners, drivers and Insurance Companies of the two vehicles. It asserted that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. In the additional pleas, it was stated that the claim petition is not legally maintainable; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely, the owners, drivers and Insurance Companies of the two vehicles. According to the O.P., at the relevant time, one Ambassador car came over there from the opposite direction and in the meantime the ill-fated Fiat Car reached there and tried to over-take the Ambassador' Car and in the process, the Fiat Car struck with the front portion of the bus. According to the O.P., the accident was witnessed by Moonga Ram, Roop Chand. Mukhtyar, Chaman Lal, Surendra Singh and Surat Singh. Due to the impact of the car, the tie-rod of the bus broke down and therefore, the breaks of the bus failed to work. It was also pleaded that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant and the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were framed : 1. Whether the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by opposite party no. 2 as alleged by the petitioner or whether the accident occurred .due to the own negligence of the deceased driver of car no. M.A.P. 4234 as alleged by opposite parties? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the driver, owner and Insurance Co. of Fiat Car no. MAP 4234 ? 3. To what amount, of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? 4. Any other relief which the petitioner may be entitled? 5. Issue No.2 regarding non-joinder of necessary parties was decided as preliminary Issue vide order dated : 10-5-1990 and it was held that the petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. No revision or appeal was preferred against the finding on Issue No.2, therefore, the finding on this Issue stood final. 6. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal took Issue No.1 for decision. It came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to sole negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of the offending bus. On Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased was aged about 49 years and he was getting salary of Rs. 3804/- per month. It came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to sole negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of the offending bus. On Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased was aged about 49 years and he was getting salary of Rs. 3804/- per month. Ultimately, the Tribunal vide impugned award dated 13-12-1991 awarded compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- in favour of the claimants. Rider of interest @ 15% per annum was added in case the compensation was not paid within a period of two months from the date of order. Aggrieved by the impugned award, both the parties have com~ up in appeal. 7. On one hand, the claimant-appellants have challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased in determining the amount of the compensation, hence the claimant-appellants have come up in appeal for enhancement of the compensation. On the other hand, the U.P.S.R.T.C. has challenged the impugned award mainly on the grounds that the finding on the point of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus is perverse and the accident was caused due to rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased Sri H.C. Goel himself. It was also contended in the alternative, that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the offending bus to the extent of 90% and 10% respectively it was lastly contended that the compensation awarded is excessive. 8. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have carefully gone through the entire material on record. 9. The main points for determination in the two appeals are 1. Whether the motor accident in question resulting into grievous injuries and death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus alone or due to contributory negligence? and 2. Whether the compensation awarded is inadequate or the compensation is excessive ? 10. In support of the claim petition, the claimants filed in documentary evidence copy of F.I.R., copy of post mortem report, pay slip, side plan, driving licence of deceased H.C. Goel, survey report of Fiat Car, charge sheet filed after police investigation against the driver of the offending bus, technical examination report of the bus etc. 10. In support of the claim petition, the claimants filed in documentary evidence copy of F.I.R., copy of post mortem report, pay slip, side plan, driving licence of deceased H.C. Goel, survey report of Fiat Car, charge sheet filed after police investigation against the driver of the offending bus, technical examination report of the bus etc. in oral evidence claimants produced P.W.-1 Shailesh Goel, P.W.-2 Vinay Kumar, P.W.-3 Jitendra Pal Singh, P.W.-4 Vidyasagar Sharma, P.W.-5 Dr. R.P. Goel, P.W.-6 Dr. D.S. Negi and P.W.-7 Arvind Kumar. As against it the opposite party U.P.S.R.T.C. examined D.W,-1 Satnam Singh driver of the offending bus, D.W,-2 Surat Singh and D.W,-3 Shiv Ram. No document was filed by the U.P.S.RT.C. in evidence. 11. So far as the point of negligence is concerned, the evidence of P.W-1, who is son of the deceased, P.W.-7 Arvind Kumar and copy of EI.R., site plan, the charge sheet submitted by the Police after investigation of the case and the evidence of defence witnesses is relevant P.W. -1 Shailesh Goel the son of the deceased has given ocular account of the accident. He stated that on• 15-6-1988 they were going from Dehradun to Meerut by their Fiat Car. His father the deceased was driving the same at a moderate speed and on its correct side. When they reached about 4 km. before Doiwala Police Station, City bus No. UGA -9034 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver came from the opposite direction and heavily hit their Fiat Car with the result the Fiat Car was completely damaged and all the occupants of the car received grievous injury. The roadways bus was being driven by Satnam Singh driver. After the accident they were brought to Doiwala Health Center and from there his father was shifted to Doon Hospital, where he died at about 3:45 p.m. the same day. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the U.P.S.R.T.C. in the cross examination he reiterated that the offending bus was going on wrong side at a high speed, He also testified that at the time of accident there car was at dead slow speed and the bus was completely on wrong side at the time of accident. The testimony of P.W.-1 finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-7 Arvind Kumar. This witness was accompanying deceased H.C. Goel at the relevant time in the Fiat Car. The testimony of P.W.-1 finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-7 Arvind Kumar. This witness was accompanying deceased H.C. Goel at the relevant time in the Fiat Car. This witness lodge the F.I.R. in the Police Station. This witness was cross examine, wherein he stated that bus completely turned from the center of road towards their Fiat Car and it was at a high speed. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of Fiat Car. 12. D.W.-1 Satnam Singh admitted himself to be the driver of the bus in question. He stated that an Ambassador Car came from the front side followed by the Fiat Car which was at a high speed. Fiat Car over took the Ambassador Car. Surat Singh concoctor was also in that bus. In his testimony he admitted the correctness of the site plan paper no. 38 C. He further admitted registration of Criminal Case No. 1722 of 1988 State Vs. Samam Singh under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. of P.S. Doiwala. He also admitted that he surrendered in the Court. He himself said that he went to the Police Station where he was arrested and then produced before the Court. He also stated he did not lodge any report with the Police Station and said that conductor Surat Singh made the report and he saw the report with his own eyes. This witness was confronted with his statement regarding mentioning of the fact that he did not hit the Fiat Car in his application for Bail. It is significant to mention that D.W.-2 Surat Singh, the conductor of the bus did not support his statement regarding lodging of report by him in the Police Station. This witness D.W.-2 has stated that he neither lodged any report with the Police station Doiwala nor he reported the matter to his higher authorities. 13. P.W.3 Shiv Ram has however tried to support the defence version but admitted in his cross-examination that the bus fell down into the Khadd on right side soon after the accident. This circumstance itself shows that the bus was running at a high speed and fell on the right side. Had the bus driver been cautious and vigilant at the time of accident, the accident could have been avoided and it would have been found on the left side instead of right side. This circumstance itself shows that the bus was running at a high speed and fell on the right side. Had the bus driver been cautious and vigilant at the time of accident, the accident could have been avoided and it would have been found on the left side instead of right side. The testimony of D.W.3 is not supported by the evidence of D.W.1, who has stated in his cross-examination that he swerved the bus towards left side to avoid accident. He also stated that after the collision, the tie-rod of the bus were broken and the brakes failed to be applied, but this witness (D.W.1) admitted in his cross-examination that there is no such mention in the record of Criminal Case No. 1722 of 1986, State Vs. Satnam Singh under Sections 279,337,338, 304-A IPC. Moreover, the technical examination report of the bus is on the record. A perusal of the same shows that there is no such mention regarding breaking of tie-rod or failure of brakes. Moreover, the site plan of the place of accident, 38-C, is on record, which shows that the bus fell down in the Khadd on right side after collision with Fiat Car. D.W.1 has testified the veracity of the site plan in his statement. The statements of the defence witnesses do not find corroboration from the documents filed on record.' All these facts lend support to the contention of the claimants that the bus driver alone was negligent and there was no chance of contributory negligence in the present accident. 14. From a perusal of the entire material on record it comes out that the testimony of the witnesses produced by the O.P. -U.P.S.R.T.C. does not find corroboration on the material aspect' of the case on the point of negligence as mentioned above. The circumstances that he did not lodge any report, his statement that the report was lodged by the conductor Surat Singh and the fact that a criminal case was initiated against the driver of the offending bus for his prosecution would lead to no other inference that the driver of the bus has not come before the court with clean hands. On the other hand, the testimony of the claimants' witnesses, namely P.W.1 and P.W.7 coupled with the F.I.R., site plan of the place of accident and the chargesheet filed by the police after investigation of the case are sufficient to prove that the accident in question was caused due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. The U.P.S.R.T.C. failed to lead any evidence to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Learned Tribunal elaborately dealt with the entire evidence and rightly decided the relevant issue on the point of rash and negligent driving. We do not find any infirmity in the finding on. Issue No.1 and accordingly the same is upheld. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 15. Now coming to the second .point whether the compensation is inadequate or the same is excessive, we find that the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 24,46,926/-. The claimants proved the income of the deceased who was posted as Civil Judge in the year 1988 at Rs. 3804/- per month by oral and documentary evidence. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that the pay-scales were revised by the State Government vide Government Order No. 2219 dated 21.9.1989 with effect from 1.1.1986 by which the Civil Judges were placed in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500/-. Learned Tribunal considered this aspect in its judgment including the income of the deceased from his salary and after retirement till the age of 65 years from legal profession. The learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-. 16. The claimant-appellants have contended that the learned Tribunal has only taken into account the basic salary of the deceased for computing compensation. This contention is misconceived. Paper No. 99-C/2 is the pay slip of the deceased filed by the claimants. A perusal of this Pay Slip shows that at the time of death the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 4,126/- per month on the basis of the revised pay scale. We have given our anxious thought on the point of income of the deceased. Even in the latest salary of the deceased, i.e. 4.126/- p.m. is taken into consideration for determination of compensation, he would have earned Rs. 49,512/- per annum. On this structure, the deceased would have earned total sum of Rs. 5,94,144/- till the age of sixty years. We have given our anxious thought on the point of income of the deceased. Even in the latest salary of the deceased, i.e. 4.126/- p.m. is taken into consideration for determination of compensation, he would have earned Rs. 49,512/- per annum. On this structure, the deceased would have earned total sum of Rs. 5,94,144/- till the age of sixty years. Certainly, the learned Tribunal must have considered the promotional aspect of the deceased while computing the loss of income at Rs. 7,00,000/-. It cannot be disputed that out of the total income, the deceased would have incurred certain expenditure towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal has computed the loss of income for the entire period of 65 years by giving reasons therefore, thereby he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- which included Rs. 7,00,000/- towards salary upto the age of 60 years and amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pension and income from legal profession. The intention of law is to award just compensation. We are of the view that the Apex Court has laid down the principles for computing compensation in the Case of Jyoti Kaur and others Vs. State of M.P. and another [(2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 306] wherein the provisions of Sections 163-A and 168 and Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were considered, wherein it was had that not only the existing salary but also any additional sum payable to the deceased depending upon the nature of his job, chances of promotion, life expectancy etc. were to be considered ,in computing the compensation. The Tribunal has considered the entire salary of the deceased keeping in view his promotional aspect in the Judicial Service for the 12 year period of his remaining service till the age of 60 years. The longevity of the deceased was taken to be 65 years as per decision of the Apex Court. This part of the impugned award holding loss of income to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- does not require any interference. 17. It is true that the Tribunal has not given details minutely in awarding compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-, when it has given details for awarding the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Even if it may be presumed that the loss of income as determined by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 11,00,000/- Then certainly the deceased would have spent certain amount towards his personal expenses. 11,00,000/-, when it has given details for awarding the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Even if it may be presumed that the loss of income as determined by the learned Tribunal was Rs. 11,00,000/- Then certainly the deceased would have spent certain amount towards his personal expenses. On the point of personal expenses of the deceased, the impugned award is silent. If we work out the personal expenses of the deceased by way of unit system, then we find that the family of the deceased H.C. Goyal consisted of the deceased, his wife and three children, who were all adults. Thus the family comprised 2 x 5 == 10 units. Taking total loss of income to be Rs. 11,00,000/-, the personal expenses for one unit comes to 1,10,000/-, thereby for the adult member it comes to Rs. 2,20,000/-. We round this figure to Rs. 2,00,000/- only. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 11,00,000/- (-) 2,00,000 = 9,00,000/-. In our view, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 9,00,000/- instead of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards loss of income of the deceased. In addition to it, the claimants were entitled certain amounts towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The accident had taken place in June, 1988, when the old Act of 1939 was applicable. Considering this aspect• of the case, we are inclined to award sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- each to all the four claimants, towards loss of consortium to the widow and loss of love and affection to three children. Thus the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/-. While awarding this amount of compensation we are supported in our view by the Apex Court Judgment in the case of The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another [2003, AIR SCW, 3797], wherein it was held that the compensation must be a 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza-Expression 'just' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. 18. So far as the award of interest is concerned, the record shows that the learned Tribunal has put rider of interest @ 15% per annum in case of default in the payment within a period of 2 months from the date of award. 18. So far as the award of interest is concerned, the record shows that the learned Tribunal has put rider of interest @ 15% per annum in case of default in the payment within a period of 2 months from the date of award. Instead of it, following the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others etc. etc. [2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments, 100 (S.C.)], we are inclined to award simple interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants on the compensation amount from the date of claim petition 12-9-1988 till the date of payment. To this extent the impugned award is liable to be modified. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 19. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the claimants, for enhancement of compensation, bearing AD. No. 288 of 2001 (Old No. 264 of 1992) has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. . 20. For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the U.P.S.R.T.C. is liable to be partly allowed. No order as to costs. 21. The A.O. No. 288 of 2001 is dismissed. The A.O. No. 278 of 2001, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Sneh Lata and others, is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 13-12-1991 is modified and the claimant-respondents are awarded compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rs. Nine lacs fifty thousand) instead of Rs. 11,00,000/- along with simple interest (a) 9% per annum as mentioned above. No order as to costs. 22. The amount, if any, in deposit with this Court be remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal concerned, for being paid to the claimant respondents.